Australian-born media mogul Rupert Murdoch (Council on Foreign Relations), whose international holdings include the supposedly conservative FOX News channel, "has been secretly building a stable of wholly-owned pornographic channels for his [British] Sky subsidiary," reported Rupert Steiner of London's The Business on February 12. "The Business has learned that Sky now owns and operates its own pornographic channels -- the 18+ Movies section -- after years of hosting third-party content only."

Previously, under British licensing rules, Rupert's Sky network was required to provide porn content produced by other networks. Having learned of porn's profit potential, however, Murdoch is developing his own original smut content, as well as "entering into partnerships with companies that broadcast pornographic television channels on Sky, such as Sport XXX Babes, XXX Housewives, and Playboy. Sky has agreed [to] retail distribution agreements with these companies. With Playboy, for instance, Sky now not only hosts the channel but sells its service, and collects and shares in the revenues from Playboy customers."

"For years the Murdoch press has labelled rival newspaper baron Richard Desmond a pornographer in articles charting his business which has included pornographic magazines and TV channels," relates Steiner. "Desmond, who owns the Daily Express and OK magazine, will view Murdoch's expansion in this field as hypocrisy." American conservatives who have viewed Murdoch as an ally interjecting a conservative voice into the "mainstream media" should take an even dimmer view of these developments.

How are you going to tax it? Most porn is now produced by overseas companies through the Internet.

And will continue to be produced overseas. The problem is recruitment. In a healthy, prosperous country, pretty girls have better options than porn. In a not quite so prosperous country (like Eastern Europe in the 90's or Brazil now) there are tons of pretty girls who will do absolutely anything for a few thousand.

63
posted on 03/15/2006 5:18:58 PM PST
by Sam the Sham
(A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)

What's the point of being moral if there really is nothing bigger in your life than you?

Because we really believe in morality even if there is no supernatural being giving it to us. I'd turn the question around. Aren't all you theists who are acting morally just performing a cost-benefit anaylsis? You act morally now so that you have an eternal reward in the future. We atheists act morally because we believe in helping others with no future eternal reward. Why is there a default that atheists are less moral - seems like the opposite should be true.

I'm not an atheist, but I know several. I'll venture to guess that when they refer to someone as being moral, they mean someone who lives an honest, law-abiding, upstanding life - and that can include going along with social norms that run to the conservative side of the fence: including marriage(e.g., not cheating because it harms the family, for starters), sexuality (e.g., not sleeping around or acting promiscuous, nor indulging in excess or unhealthy sexual practices that may harm themself or someone else either mentally or physically - to include letting kids watch porn previews in hotels), work ethic (work hard, treat customers, employees and employers fairly), etc., and to raise their kids the same way. You get my point, yet I'm just scratching the surface.

That said, the atheists I know all fit in the above category. It's like they go out of their way to be decent. I have no problem with that at all.

73
posted on 03/15/2006 7:47:06 PM PST
by coop71
(Being a redhead means never having to say you're sorry...)

Because we really believe in morality even if there is no supernatural being giving it to us.

But morality is a supernatural being. A belief system based on good vs evil or right vs wrong. Before one can know what is right or what is wrong, one must look to a template of behaviour. Your just relying upon the blueprint for modern life with no credit given to its Creator.

My Creator is not supernatural at all. He is manifest in all things including ourselves. One can not look into the night sky or into the eyes of our children and not be awed by what we have been given.

But morality is a supernatural being. A belief system based on good vs evil or right vs wrong. Before one can know what is right or what is wrong, one must look to a template of behaviour. Your just relying upon the blueprint for modern life with no credit given to its Creator.

I disagree with this, as do most atheists. We believe than Man is able to understand good and evil without a Creator. Virtually all religions and belief systems have some form of the Golden Rule, and that rule is a moral rule that does not require a Creator to give or explain it. Our fundamental disagreement, and one that will almost certainly not get resolved, is the idea that this template of moral behavior must come from God, and not creatable by man.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.